Talk:Upstream Color

sections copied from web source
Parts of the article have been taken verbatim from a Slate FAQ. While the source is linked directly (not as a proper reference) in the article, the copied text is not marked as a citation and would in any case probably have to be paraphrased as it is too long. --88.72.239.88 (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Reception
From reading the reception section, it really gives the impression in the opening paragraphs that the movie is universally well-received. If you look at metacritic.com (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/upstream-color) at the user(i.e. viewer) reviews, this movie gets generally mixed reviews. I have heard it's awful from many sources, and read many critics reviews that dislike the movie, yet the article is very bias in this instance; no? 194.46.173.157 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look at the link you yourself provided, you will notice that the film has a rating of 81 (out of 100) which is interpreted by Metacritic as having "universal acclaim" based on "27 critics".  Timbouctou ( talk ) 23:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * True, from pretentious asshole critics. Viewer reviews are SIGNIFICANTLY different. I've modified the article to represent such.194.46.173.157 (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOSFILM, we only include reviews from legitimate film critics, with very few exceptions. Viewer rankings can be used only when part of a poll by an actual polling firm, such as CinemaScore. User rankings are never to be used. Woodroar (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jan/23/sundance-festival-upstream-color-first-look-review 194.46.173.157 (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's one negative review, which is already in the article. There are others, of course. But keep in mind that 113 out of 133 reviews (84%) at Rotten Tomatoes are positive, earning it a "Certified Fresh" label. And Metacritic gives it a score of 81, which they call "Universal acclaim". Woodroar (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also reverted. I don't have a problem with including the source or adjusting the wording, however the source says "generally positive reviews" which isn't the same as 'mixed'. PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)